Oh, I beg your pardon. You've argued that government compel its citizens only for good purposes. Silly me.
You really seem not to get the fact that to justify a dubious principle with the proviso that it not be abused is ipso facto utilitarian.
Shouldn't it be obvious that arguments predicated on the Declaration of Indpendence presume that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed?
No. These days the governed consent to a great many depraved things. You will not find a majority in this country prepared to vote for human life protections in line with those demanded by the Catholic Church. You have got to face the fact that some political theories implicit in the Declaration -- specifically, the notion that all power derives from the popular will -- are radically inconsistent with a Christian view.
"Silly me."
Yes, silly you. Not only for "good purposes," but to a limited extent, with the consent of the governed, and within Constitutional constraints.
It is silly indeed to have a problem with that.
"You really seem not to get the fact that to justify a dubious principle with the proviso that it not be abused is ipso facto utilitarian."
Been a long time since philosophy 101, eh? Utilitarianism is the political philosophy that justifies measures by their utility. There is no necessary connection whatsoever with their "dubiousness" or any requirement that they not be abused.
"No."
Or rather, to any sensible and fair-minded person, "Yes."
"specifically, the notion that all power derives from the popular will -- are radically inconsistent with a Christian view."
It was specifically stated by the Founding Fathers that the popular will would necessarily be informed by Christian principles, else the system would not work.
The Declaration implicitly holds that the power that derives from the popular will has its source in God. Rights derive from God, and people can exercise power in line with those rights. It's not a license to do anything our sinful natures can conceive.